So, putting on my COIN hat for a moment, this is how I see the buildup to the next Trump insurrection happening. Yeah, it's hypothetical and no, it may not happen. But it's already happened once; to think with certainty it won't again is shortsighted and foolish.
If I had to wager a guess: Trump smells an indictment coming. That's the reason we're hearing all this "reinstatement" stuff suddenly. He knows or strongly suspects it's coming soon, and he thinks he can twist it and use it as a means to either protect himself or seize power.
He's going to use that indictment as "proof the Deep State is trying to prevent my reinstatement in August" or "they're trying to take your vote away" or "they're afraid of the truth" or something similar. "THIS is the only way the Socialists know they can stop us!".
Note that I said "us". I think you can expect Trump to put a lot of focus on this being an attack against conservative American citizens, not just himself. The inclination to protect oneself is generally stronger than the need to protect others (for most).
After months and months of his base eating up false claims of them being cheated and his winning the election, those excuses will go down nice and smooth. They believe Satanic pedophiles run government; you think they won't buy this? Come on.
The indictment drops. Trump is in trouble. At this point people like Flynn will loudly tell Trump voters that "We the People" need to protect the sanctity of the Constitution and "Restore the Republic". Exactly that language. He'll tell them "the Storm was ALWAYS us".
Trump is the sort of man who would sacrifice his own kids to save himself. Offering up American civil stability is an easy choice for him. He calls on his followers to rise up and protect him and "Save America", which by the way is his current motto.
At this point Republicans have a choice: support, denounce, or do nothing. The loudest and most power-hungry: Jordan, Gaetz, Gohmert, Stefanik, Nunes, Biggs, Brooks, Greene, Boebert, Cawthorne, Blackburn, Cruz and many others throw their chips in with Trump.
A small handful of Republicans: Kinzinger, Cheney, Murkowski, maybe Romney and a couple more denounce (and immediately make themselves targets of Trump and what is essentially his SA at this point).
The cowards: McConnell, Graham, McCarthy, and others like them (the most powerful figures in the party) stay silent, afraid of Trump, his army, and their retribution. For them it's about self-preservation. Better to watch and wait, then support whoever wins.
This is the point we start to see violence, which I personally think is the most likely scenario. Trump spent years playing on white Christian grievances, firing up their fears about America's changing demographics, about how their "culture" is being taken from them.
These are the believers, the ones who have always "known" this was happening, and were waiting for someone to come along and make it mainstream, to throw the match into the straw. These are the scary ones. A belief isn't an idea; you can change an idea. A belief is much stronger.
At this point we see Trump's most fervent start to storm and overrun government institutions like they did the Capitol, only this time in greater numbers with armed individuals. As history has shown time and time again, deluded Nationalism spreads quicker than any virus.
Now ordinary citizens who opposed Trump start to fight back, and the National Guard is put into action. The US military is a wildcard; I don't believe they'd be utilized (not immediately, that's what the NG is for) but you can bet individuals with various loyalties get involved.
At this point the majority of the United States has devolved into chaotic infighting that could last years. The country is effectively incapacitated, with global ramifications.
This is a worst-case scenario based on one man's analysis. It likely won't get to that point. But it could. It absolutely could. It was already attempted on January 6th. That was a literal breath away from utter disaster. This is no time to be complacent.
Or, look at it like this: we need to stop saying "it can happen here" and start saying "it might happen here".

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John, Really Powerful Guy

John, Really Powerful Guy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GameDadJP

3 Jun
So, let's examine this through the lens of someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I've spoken at length before about terrorism and what it is/isn't. Not surprising that someone from The Blaze wouldn't know. So, let's go!
When we talk about "terrorism" we aren't talking about tossing a brick into a laundromat or punching someone. Terrorism encompasses things like kidnapping, hijackings, executions, hostage-taking, mass casualty events, etc to instill....y'know....terror.
While there isn't one globally-accepted definition of the word "terrorism", it's roundly accepted that it involves everything I just mentioned. Remember that, because we'll come back to it.
Read 16 tweets
18 May
So, I hate to share this, but as someone who actually knows what he's talking about I feel compelled to correct the Congresswoman on a few things.

The Capitol riot on January 6th was insurrection, and the people involved were insurgents. The BLM protests were not. Why? Well.....
(BTW this comes from a nearly twenty-year career in Counterinsurgency theory and practice, both in training our allies and practical application in two theaters of war, so I'm not just whistling dixie out of my ass)
An insurgency is a violent uprising by unlawful combatants against a constituted government, with the aim of overthrowing/supplanting that government. But wait, what is a LAWFUL combatant? Article IV of the Geneva Convention defines lawful combatants by four criteria:
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(